sda2.jpg

June 24, 2006

In the War on Terror … or rather… The War on Us

Why Terrorism Must Win

From the point of view of the left, (union hacks, Euro-elite, mini-Moore extremists, MSM elitists, socialist utopians, KOS kids, and progressives) Iraq MUST FAIL. In order to be proven correct, in order to save their ideology, in order to put America in her place, Iraq as a country must not succeed, and terrorism must win in Iraq.

Falling In Love with Afghanistan

Flora MacDonald wants people thinking more about Afghanistan - but not the one the media portrays… MacDonald has returned to Afghanistan on eight occasions, and said she feels very connected to both the place and the people.

"I've fallen in love with the Afghan people," she said. "They're so warm and affectionate."

Having spent time with Canada's troops in Afghanistan from 2001 onwards, MacDonald said she supports the country's military presence.

Letters From Afghanistan

"We chased a dude over a hill yesterday, and I thought I was going to puke ... but we got him. You need a minimum 10 litres of water to get by here. It's hard to sleep at night because if the heat doesn't get you, the fact they love to shoot rockets into our camp almost every other day ... I'm desensitized to them now. I don't even bother running to the shelter, I just roll over and go to sleep."

And the NDP wants us in Darfur
(slow download; second try usually works; a view from the Umma)

The campaign against Sudan increased even as evidence was being brought forward that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a total lie. The same media that had given credibility to the U.S. government's claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because that country had "weapons of mass destruction" switched gears to report on "war crimes" by Arab forces in Sudan.

This Darfur campaign accomplishes several goals of U.S. imperialist policy. It further demonizes Arab and Muslim people. It diverts attention from the human rights catastrophe caused by the brutal U.S. war and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.


It is also an attempt to deflect attention from the U.S. financing and support of Israel's war on the Palestinian people.

Aljazeera: Some Soul Searching

Nowadays, the more "religious" some Muslims regard themselves to be, the less tolerant they are. The cause is a troubling intellectual decline of the Islamic civilizations… While Muslims complain about the Western lack of understanding of Islam, this misconstruction in the interpretation of religious texts is unfortunately prevalent in the Muslim mind today.

Posted by at June 24, 2006 10:01 AM
Comments

debris trail- you've provided us with a fascinating set of opinions.

The Sudan/Darfur link is an example of a totally irrational rant against the US. It's a fascinating article, essentially ignoring the genocide in Darfur, and redefining it as mere tribal skirmishes over grazing rights and water during drought. There's no mention that Muslims are killing Muslims, no mention of Islamic involvlement, no mention of ethnic cleansing, and instead, the article asserts that the real cause, indeed all causality, about everything that is wrong anywhere in the world, is 'the imperialist US'.

This includes slavery, which was at one time, an important economic activity and asset of the Islamic world; this includes oil, which is now an important activity and asset of the Islamic world; this includes -well, it includes everything. When one moves into a theoretical framework that locates all causality within ONE Agent - then, one has moved out of reality and into the song of fiction.

This article is an example of the capacity of the human mind to live within a fictional reality. How do you do it? You set up links. You might no have any evidence that the US actually caused the fighting in Darfur. So what? Who bothers with evidence?

You make up connections, none of which are connected in reality but in your fictional world, you can set up any connections you want. Remember, as the Queen of Hearts said "Sentence first, verdict afterwords'. In other words - to hell with evidence.

So, you can claim that Darfur is being brought to attention now, not because there's any problem there (according to the author, there is no genocide there, just some trivial tribal skirmishes over grazing) - but because of the US problem in Iraq. And then, you add in all other sorts of accusations and nonsense, and, convince yourself that no-one is dying in Darfur, that the only reason to concern yourself about it now, is because the US wants to divert attention from The Real Problem, which is Iraq. Everythings just fine in Darfur.

The human capacity for fiction - well, just take a look at our bookstores, our films. We can create any 'reality' we cant. But sometimes, just sometimes, don't we have to acknowledge the real objective world?

Posted by: ET at June 24, 2006 10:49 AM

The war on Terror is on us Hows that?

When did Iraq attack anyone?
When did Afghanistan attack us?

Lots of countries in a lot worse shape then these 2 for human rights.
We're not our brothers keeper, people have to settle their differences themselves.
Can't say we're bringing Democracy to the Middle East, because they've had it until outsiders started interfering, assainating their elected leaders, so someone can put their puppet in power to rape the country and oppress the people.

Israel treats the palestiniens worse then south africa did the blacks. They shut down the schools when they want, for up to a year. they refuse to let arabs move around cutting water power closing shops and putting arabs by the hundreds out of work.

But I know what your gonna say blame the jews thats all your doing. That proves you know nothing about the M.E. Because most of the Jews agree with what I'm saying. Wasn't that long ago over a million marched for and end to the occupition, Jew and Arab together The hate some of the Jews lived through has infected them with the same disease as the Nazis and KKK have, just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.

I'd like to encourage all if they get the chance to visit palestine, take your camara and lots of film.

Posted by: neutralsam at June 24, 2006 11:54 AM

Saddam believes Americans might reinstall him as president of Iraq... Developing... Drudge


Saddam Who? ...-

Posted by: maz2 at June 24, 2006 12:24 PM

no, neutralsam; your anger and neuroses are all that dominates your posts.

No, the ME did not have democracy. Ever. They didn't have elections. Ever.

I happen to agree with you, in part but only in part, about Israel and Palestine. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic fascism. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are about Islamic fascism.
Kindly get your 'problems' properly categorized.

No, the Jews are not 'infected' with Nazi inspired hate.
Frankly, I don't think you really care about Israel & Palestine; or Islamic fascism or Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your problem and focus, neutralsam, is strictly personal. You are intensely angry about something personal - about drugs, prison, the US - and you view the world within that framework. Your personal anger is your whole world.

Posted by: ET at June 24, 2006 1:00 PM

HEADLINE: "SMALL PLANE LANDS IN RED SQUARE"

KATE'S post, "Why Terrorism Must Win", explains why the Socialists act in strange ways. We have always had The Left, since time began I suppose. But now they, Elitist MSM ect, seem to have pulled out all the stops. They will/have gone to great lengths in opposing ANYTHING that works for the good of a free society. This time-round they are scared stiff of losing. Hence the Left's hitching itself to such a falling star as the weird UN's Kyoto. But as we all know, the truth eventually wins. I think it is best explained by Patrick Moore, Greenspirit.com. He was a founding member of Greenpeace International. But he had a severe falling out when the organization was taken over in the Left's panic, following the Fall of the Berlin Wall. Truth exposed the folly of the Communist/Socialist "system".

Headlines: " MAN BLOWS USSR IMPENITRABLE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM WITH A 4 CYLINER CESSNA PUT BANGER !! "

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at June 24, 2006 2:24 PM

The best thing about trolls is that they catalogue all the delusional rants of the left. The constant reposting of these absurdities allows one to be prepared with rational responses.
Not for the trolls themselves but for apolitical friends and family who casually regurgitate MSM talking points.

1. Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980, Kuwait 1991.
2. When did Afghanistan attack us? 2001

Perhaps I’m being a bit presumptuous on the second point. What do you mean by us, paleface?

Posted by: Tonto at June 24, 2006 2:58 PM

Re: Why Terrorism must win

"From the point of view of the left, (union hacks, Euro-elite, mini-Moore extremists, MSM elitists, socialist utopians, KOS kids, and progressives) Iraq MUST FAIL. In order to be proven correct, in order to save their ideology, in order to put America in her place, Iraq as a country must not succeed, and terrorism must win in Iraq."

Debris Trail demonstrates the binary logic of conservatives: if you’re not for us, you’re against us; if you don’t support the "War on Terror" then you support the terrorists and, therefore you are a traitor; either you are a conservative and good, or a socialist and evil, etc. Mixed in with this a common conservative deduction: if you don’t support the US/coalition forces then you want to see our soldiers die because that will help the socialist dream of UN controlled one world government.

What nonsense! This is paranoid, conservative tribal mentality, where everyone else’s opinion is unworthy and questionable unless it matches your own and where everything is either white or black (or in this case, red). The "union hacks, Euro-elite, mini-Moore extremists, MSM elitists, socialist utopians, KOS kids, and progressives" don’t want terrorism to win. (Provide proof, not opinion if you think they do.) However, that disparate group (and many other people) are fed up with the neocons and other right wingers who appear to be using terrorism as an excuse to try and impose their utopian dogma on certain oil rich countries in the world.

Posted by: lberia at June 24, 2006 5:25 PM

A "Socialist Dream "

The Nghtmare could become reality, just like it did in the USSR and The Eastern Block. Citizens without good homes, poor quality food at best, freezing buildings,.... ah yes, back-to-the-land-simple-life a la Jacuzzi and the boys.

The following sites explain it all, in THEIR own words. The so-called Cons are NOT making this up.

Look into anything under; "One World Governance, Earth Charter, United Nations, Maurice Strong, Population Control, ect.

Fertilizer can bring down Toronto's CN Tower, because it is there. It bothers the Terrorists because it signifies our success. And the people having dinner up there are happy. Better they be stoned,.. not "stoned".

Posted by: B. Hoax Aware at June 24, 2006 6:55 PM

The words "militants" and "extremists" are politically correct terms for Muslim Islamist terrorists.

More, and faster. ...-

Coalition, Afghan Troops Kill 82 Militants
Forbes - 10 hours ago
By TINI TRAN , 06.24.2006, 08:12 AM. Afghan and US-led coalition forces killed about 82 militants in battles across southern Afghanistan, the military said Saturday. On Friday, troops fought more than 40 extremists ...via google news

Posted by: maz2 at June 24, 2006 7:09 PM

Iberia: Provide Proof??? Are you kidding. I'm assuming at this point that since 911 you haven't read a single newspaper; haven't listened during a single election debate; don't follow the New Media via blogs, books, talkradio and cable TV; dont' listen when anyone from Michael Moore to Howard Dean to your average run of the mill leftist open their mouth!... Proof?

Do Cows Moo?

Posted by: Debris Trail at June 24, 2006 7:31 PM

A good explantion of why so many on the left end up as trolls.

neutralsam and Iberia being examples here.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at June 24, 2006 7:45 PM

DT:
eg. Did Michael Moore ever say he wanted the terrorists to win? If so, prove it.

Posted by: lberia at June 24, 2006 7:45 PM

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win.

Michael Moore

Posted by: Debris Trail at June 24, 2006 9:45 PM

Taken in context with everything else Moore has said, yes, he wants them to win.

Posted by: Debris Trail at June 24, 2006 9:46 PM

CAIR Complaining to FBI About Blogs

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has begun filing complaints with the FBI about comments on this blog and others (not front page posts). I know this because I’ve spoken with two different agents recently about LGF comments that were reported to the FBI by CAIR.

Just thought you might like to know too. The premier Islamist front group is starting to go after the blogosphere, using the tools provided by our own society. ...- LGF

Posted by: maz2 at June 24, 2006 10:04 PM

DT:

Taken in context??? It's funny that you should say that about this particular quote, since Moore was commenting on the Orwellian language being used by Bush:

3w.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

You have provided a great example of what I wrote of earlier: "The conservative deduction." Since when does "they will win" mean "I WANT them to win"?

Posted by: lberia at June 24, 2006 10:17 PM

Islamists will set off dirty bomb, spy bosses believe
Posted by managusta
On 06/24/2006 7:15:11 PM PDT · 10 replies · 186+ views

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | 06/25/2006 | Sean Rayment/
Spy chiefs fear that it is a case of "when, not if" Islamist terrorists launch a "dirty bomb" attack against London or another western capital, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. Security sources have disclosed that the belief amongst most intelligence agencies is that a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) attack, using a so-called dirty bomb, is now inevitable. The warning comes three weeks after 250 police officers stormed the home of two Muslim brothers in Forest Gate, east London, in the mistaken belief that they were attempting to develop a chemical bomb. It follows growing concern among members of... free republic

Posted by: maz2 at June 24, 2006 10:37 PM

Iberia: Context, includes everything Moore says, does, suggests, and supports... ever. Are you actually suggesting, that you, or I, must phrase in completely concrete terms our intentions or else no accuzation counts. ie: "I want the terrorists to win", is about all that would count.

Moore... like all people, must be taken in context with everything he has said. Moore, to remain credible, "must" see terrorism win in Iraq... and likely elsewhere because of the positions he has very publicly carved out on the ultra-extreme utopian side of discourse. Your characterization of "context" in the quote above is an example of hyper-apologetics; nothing more. If everyone was granted that level of latitude in what they made in public statements, hardly no one would ever have to apologize or retract what they've said.

I trust that you give everyone then, even us rightwhingers, that much latitude in what we "supposedly" say and "might" claim.

Posted by: Debris Trail at June 24, 2006 11:02 PM

DT:

"Are you actually suggesting, that you, or I, must phrase in completely concrete terms our intentions or else no accuzation counts."

Unless you think it’s ok to slander people or groups you dislike...though it does nothing for your credibility. I think one must be accurate and base any accusations on facts. If you’re white and you only have white friends, does that make you a racist? If you support same sex marriage, does that make you gay? So why is it when someone disagrees with the War on Terror, you feel justified in accusing them of supporting terrorism.

Latitude in making public statements has its legal limits. Moore, for example, hasn’t either been charged with treason or lost a lawsuit for getting his facts wrong. It seems that latitude is something right-wingers would like to keep for themselves while denying it to those they disagree with.

Posted by: lberia at June 25, 2006 3:24 AM

Robert in Calgary, This is whats wrong with the way things are going.

police operator; hello city police can I help you?

caller; Ya I saw this guy next door talking with these strange looking middle eastern people about buying fertilizer. This guy hates the government.

Sounds like it could be inocent enough.
Now this next door guy could be a farmer living in the city while his kids take care of the family farm. and might end up in some prison without contact. I was reading that the new Patriot Act sounds good but it makes anyone who breaks American Law a terrorist, no matter what country your in. We've already had two canadians falsely imprisoned and taken into US custody.

The first was for selling Halliburtons products to iraq, he got 3 years, even though he never broje any laws here, or in the states while he was in their country.

The second guy was for training police to protect us from terrorists.

Remember laws like the ones coming can and do get abused everytime.

If someone don't like you, you better start recording all your movements.

Wasn't Kate delievering explosives in her trip down south?

SEE

Posted by: Andy from Mayberry at June 25, 2006 3:55 AM

Well I just got home went and caught me a nice salmon.
While out we started talking, as fishermen sometimes do, the conversation came to the blogs and how info can be spread over the world hiding nothing.

I mentioned that so many in the world are filled with hate and wanted war, for no other reason then the beliefs of the church. On oneside we have Islam on the other we have christianity both want to run the world, in the interrests of their religion.

I see that as few as 1:100 post here the rest are just readers, just a guess.
Some of the people that I went fishing with come here as readers. They stop by and read the posts almost daily, ruinned the fishing for a bit. Bothsides on the same boat but nobody would say who they were, I'm the first to come out lets see if anyone else does.

So were out fishing talking about the War and Religion. lol
I believe that the battle for control, Islam or Christianity, which one gets to control the world. Many here want to do the same to our country that the extremists do over there.
Think about it, read the past posts, they saw it right away on the boat.
One side wants the other to be like them in thought and dress. You don't, they'll act like children, cause other then the government said this or that is all they have.The FBI says they have nothing connecting Usama bin laden to the attacks on 9/11 why would the FBI say that?
For those asking for proof go to the FBI's site.

Our governments are dragging us into a one world order, with the UN as the police force.

To Tonto
1. Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980, Kuwait 1991.
2. When did Afghanistan attack us? 2001

Please tell the world which one of the hijackers came from afghanistan?
Kuwait is part of Iraq, so is part of Iran.
The US supplied equipment to bothsides in the Iraq Iran war.

The world sees this site and thinks we're a bunch of dumb rednecks that can't think for themselves.

Posted by: neutralsam at June 25, 2006 5:48 AM

neutralsam--absolutely correct--it amazes me that so many can wax eloquent about 'war' and the deep meaning of words--which only goes to show that they cannot face the fact of what war really is--the use of our children to kill and be killed--the killing and maiming of our children and other children for the sake of what--the right to wax eloquent about things that don't matter at all. Reality is a crutch to them--truth is something that must not be spoken, must be hidden at all costs so that those who are more equal can justify their lack of thought on real issues.
That so many 'intellectuals' can be led so easily--why--are they hopeing for an exemption from having to do the real work when the war breaks out all over the world. Will they sit in their armchairs and click their tongues at our kids being killed by someone? To follow blindly the dictates from on high is a sure sign of the lack of thinking. I once asked my mother how the women of the war years could allow their husbands and sons to be used to kill and be killed--her answer--you would not believe the propaganda justifying these actions--and she has been proven right--and look how many follow with out question the propaganda!

Posted by: George at June 25, 2006 10:03 AM

Update: "More, and faster."

Anti-Taleban offensive 'kills 48'
BBC News - 2 hours ago
Afghan and US-led forces have killed at least 48 Taleban militants in heavy overnight fighting in southern Kandahar province, the Afghan army says. The coalition said two of its soldiers died in the clash in Panjwayi district. ... google news

Posted by: maz2 at June 25, 2006 10:29 AM

neutral[sic]sam writes: "On oneside [sic] we have Islam [sic] on [sic] the other [sic] we have christianity [sic] both [sic] want to run the world, in the interrests [sic] of their religion." (neutralsam, you could use an editor.)

What poppycock! What's your proof that Christianity wants to "run the world"? (In another context someone once asked, "How many divsions has the pope?" As in armies that kill, none!)

Even if "Christianity"--embodied how?--did want to run the world, it seems to me it's a complete loser in that department: The reality of the situation seems to be that Christianity is being pushed to the margins in the West, and Christians are being actively persecuted, e.g., by Canada's Human Rights (sic) Commissions. (Check out Scott Brockie and Chris Kempling, to name only two.)

Your thesis simply doesn't hold water:

1) The West is barely Christian these days, and has generally turned its back on its Christian past.

2) The good bequeathed to the West by its Judeo-Christian heritage--e.g., the rule of law--is being watered down at an alarming rate in western democracies.

Would that Christianity DID have more sway! ("Love thy neighbour as thyself.") The West has now squanderd most of its moral capital. The result? Our societies are becoming less and less civilized by the minute. I should know: I teach in the the trenches of the public school system of a large Canadian city. Altruism is virtually non-existent. Yobbism prolifrates. What would one expect when rights trump responsibilities every time? (Until this inversion gets righted--difficult, when a critical mass of young people aren't growing up at all, let alone becoming good citizens--the steep decline will continue at an ever increasing rate.)

neutralsam, be careful what you wish for . . .

Posted by: lookout at June 25, 2006 12:10 PM

P.S. Have neutralsam or George ever heard of dhimmitude? Christians are worse than second class citizens in Islamic countries and suffer all kinds of indignities--up to and including death--all allowed by Islamic "law". Read this by David Warren:

"But returning to Pakistan: my acquaintance with the persecution of Christians in Lahore goes back to our cook, Bill, & the other Christian servants my family sometimes employed when I was a child . . . There was far less persecution then, but it was taken for granted that Pakistani Christians kept their heads down, & made constant gestures of self-humiliation towards the Muslim people around them. And while the Pakistani politicians had not yet written blasphemy against Islam into their British-inherited law codes, Christians could be killed at any moment as the result of an informal charge of blasphemy by any Muslim with whom they had the misfortune to do business. Then as now, the threat of such a charge was used to support extortion & blackmail; & as throughout Islamic history, the Christian "dhimmis" were looked upon as a source of easy money; & of women that young Muslim men could feel free to abuse . . .

"Bill, the cook, would tell you things that had happened to members of his family in the most straightforward way. When his son, for instance, was made to walk through hot coals by some Muslim boys, he treated it as if it were some kind of playground accident that only required medical attention. It wouldn't occur to him to have charges laid against his son's persecutors, since doing so would obviously lead to the extinction of his whole family. (Luckily for Bill, he had my father to pay his son's costs at the Christian hospital. Now, almost all the hospitals were Christian, founded by missionaries like pretty much all the decent schools.)

"Things get mildly better or worse, from decade to decade, for dhimmis in Islamic societies, but essentially, plus ça change, plus c'est la meme
chose."

Guys, you don't seem to realize that dhimmitude is in store for all us "infidels" in the West if we lose this war. (George, was September 11, 2001 simply "propaganda"? How about Nicole Goddard and our other dead soldiers?)

Generally, fellas, I find postings from people like you quite lacking in facts or good sense. Smarten up, eh.

Posted by: lookout at June 25, 2006 12:32 PM

Treason of the Intellectuals* ...-

Celebration of Islam Scheduled for 7/7

For the anniversary of the London Islamic terror attacks, a huge festival is planned to promote Islam, featuring a cast of radical Islamic superstars and their Western enablers including “Red Ken” Livingstone, Tariq Ramadan, Azzam Timimi, Yvonne Ridley, and many more: IslamExpo. (Hat tip: kasper.)

The impressive list of speakers features such world-renowned names as Prof. John Espozito (Georgetown University), Mr Wadah Khanfar (General Manager of Aljazeera Satellite network), Frank Gardner (BBC), Seumas Milne (The Guardian), Prof. Tariq Ramadan (Oxford University), Prof. Jacques Waardenburg (Lausanne University), Norman Kember (Christian Peacemaker Teams), Rageh Omaar (former BBC correspondent),Prof. Merve Kavakci (George Washington University), Dr. Azzam Tamimi (Institute of Islamic Political Thought) and Alastair Crooke (Conflicts Forum). via LGF ...

*Treason of the Intellectuals.


Excerpt:

In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed “the cult of success.” It is summed up, he writes, in “the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt.” In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek sophists on down reminds us. In Plato’s Gorgias, for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates’ devotion to philosophy: “I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child.” Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that “the more powerful, the better, and the stronger” are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, “luxury and intemperance … are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel.” How contemporary Callicles sounds!

In Benda’s formula, this boils down to the conviction that “politics decides morality.” To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. ...

* and the undoing of thought: by Roger Kimball. New Criterion archive.

Posted by: maz2 at June 25, 2006 1:33 PM

Lookout--did GWBush not state that God had talked to him and told him to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to bring democracy to those two countries?
This 'war' was couched in the same terms as the Crusades--and will probably have the same result. Remember the Whirling Dirvishew--today they are suicide bombers. We have learned nothing so will pay the price. The whole world will be involved this time.

Posted by: George at June 25, 2006 5:03 PM

George said:

"neutralsam--absolutely correct--it amazes me that so many can wax eloquent about 'war' and the deep meaning of words"

Well, it amazes me that so many like you can sit and act like you have one clue about what war is or isn't when you've most likely never even been near one.

Posted by: Combat Jump Star at June 25, 2006 6:28 PM

No--I have never been near one--but I do know what it does to people who are left behind--children, wives, fathers, mothers and siblings. I cannot imagine what it does to innocent people who are caught up in it in their homes, people who lose everything they love, and will be paying for with their lives through DU contamination, dirty water, lost limbs and all the other horrors.
I know that I do not want to sacrifice my sons and daughters for an illegal, immoral war that will not accomplish anything but make Halliburton etc. richer while my children die.
I do know that if war is the only answer, we have not moved very far from the dark ages. The only thing we have accomplished is to make killing more inhumane on a larger scale and created products that will keep killing long after the war is over. I know that we have become that which we purport to hate, that being cruel and inhuman--and justify it with flowery words and spin. I do not have to be in a war to know that it is not the answer--

Posted by: George at June 25, 2006 7:19 PM

george - what are you suggestions about dealing with Islamic fascism? How would you stop that?

How would you deal with Islamic fascists who stone women to death for their being raped?

How would you deal with their rejection of women's equality and their right to an education?

How would you deal with the Islamic fascists who consider it a duty to blow up innocent civilians because they are not Muslim?

How would you deal with Darfur, where arab Muslims are killing black Muslims?

Posted by: ET at June 25, 2006 8:01 PM

So basically what you're saying then george is, that nothing is ever worth war? Just going by these statements:

" I do not have to be in a war to know that it is not the answer--"

" neutralsam--absolutely correct--it amazes me that so many can wax eloquent about 'war' and the deep meaning of words--which only goes to show that they cannot face the fact of what war really is--the use of our children to kill and be killed--the killing and maiming of our children and other children for the sake of what--the right to wax eloquent about things that don't matter at all."

You may not to have to have been in a war to have an opinion on other ways to solve things, but it'd be nice if you had ever been near one before you tell those of us that have been "what war really is" So again, is your contention that war is never justified?

And as far as an "illegal" war, sorry to tell you, but the US followed national law in declaring and going to war. Hate to tell you, but the UN doesn't dictate American policy. And I'll say again that Saddam violated the cease fire agreement that was in place after the first Gulf war. You can keep calling it illegal and immoral all you want, that doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Combat Jump Star at June 25, 2006 8:19 PM

George, try reading the ceasefire agreement.

There's nothing illegal about the military action, nothing at all.

Your thinking on "war" is quite simplistic.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at June 25, 2006 8:34 PM

ET--how would you deal with a country that allows rapists of women and children back out into society to prey on them again? How do you deal with murderers who commit 7 murders because some faceless parole board let them back out onto the street? How do you deal with a country that allows one segment of it's population dictate the breaking of all laws with impunity? How do you answer to women who are living in condemned houses while their Chief lives in the lap of luxury. How do you deal with dying people who cannot get healthcare while we are spending millions telling others how to live?
We do not have anything to be proud of. If we lived in a perfect country we may have the right to tell others how to achieve Nirvana--
No, my view of war is not simplistic--it is very real--try it sometime--democracy at the end of a gun just makes people hate us more.
As for education--Afghanistan women were very well educated--they came to Canada as doctors, lawyers etc. after the country was invaded by the Russians and the West. It is propaganda and spin and the dull witted are falling for it. Clean up Canada before we dare tell others how to live.

Posted by: George at June 25, 2006 8:49 PM

While you are carrying on about women's rights--don't forget that the previous government of Canada facilitated the easy entry into Canada of lapdancers from Romania--this is respect for women? This is equality for women in Canada when they are slaves to the sex trade? Spin and more spin!

Posted by: George at June 25, 2006 9:41 PM

George - From what you say--you sidestepped all the points I made--I'd say smartening up isn't your strong suit.

Good night.

Posted by: lookout at June 25, 2006 10:51 PM

The National Dipstick Party. If we were in Darfur, they would insist we should be in Afghanistan.

There aim is to be contrary not reasonable.
TG

Posted by: TG at June 26, 2006 12:24 AM

well folks, see, its like this: islam IS where christianity WAS about 700 years ago.

there are a LOT of similarities between the 2 faiths:

current sunni vs shiite;
mid ages protestant vs catholic

on and on and on.

truth is real ugly sometimes.

Posted by: Robert J BA BSc at June 26, 2006 12:32 AM

Nice of george to sidestep every question or point laid out before him. Pretty much proves the "troll" label. If you offered anything other than left wing talking points george, people might be willing to have a debate with you. And yes, your view of war is very simplistic. Again, are you saying that war is never justified? And now you tell us what the women in Afghanistan are like. Have you been there? No, I doubt it. Again, if you don't have anything other than left wing talking points and pacifism why even bother?

And robert J, um, is that supposed to be like an "ooooo burn!" or what? Why do people on the left bring that up like it should explain everything? A religion that's 700 years behind the rest of the world doesn't seem like a good thing to me, and it sure as hell isn't a good thing for the world. Maybe you'd prefer to go back to those days, I don't know. Personally, I'd prefer to stay in this time frame.

Posted by: Combat Jump Star at June 26, 2006 1:41 AM

At the risk of being troll-ish, some food for thought for those posturing against Bush, Harper, and "war-mongering conservatives" in general:

". . . My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa; nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it, no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism; between the rule of law and terrorism. We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must.

America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on Earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.

But of this I am also sure. The risks from inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact."

- William J. Clinton
Presidential Address from August 20th, 1998.

Link

Posted by: crosseyedcyclops at June 26, 2006 7:11 AM

At the risk of being troll-ish, here's some food for thought for those posturing against Harper, Bush, and "war-mongering conservatives":

". . . My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa; nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it, no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism; between the rule of law and terrorism. We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must.

"America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on Earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.

"But of this I am also sure. The risks from inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact. In this case, we knew before our attack that these groups already had planned further actions against us and others.

"I want to reiterate: The United States wants peace, not conflict. We want to lift lives around the world, not take them. We have worked for peace -- in Bosnia, in Northern Ireland, in Haiti, in the Middle East and elsewhere. But in this day, no campaign for peace can succeed without a determination to fight terrorism. Let our actions today send this message loud and clear: There are no expendable American targets. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our values. We will help people of all faiths, in all parts of the world, who want to live free of fear and violence. We will persist and we will prevail.

"Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless our country."

- William J. Clinton
Presidential Address from August 20, 1998

Posted by: crosseyedcyclops at June 26, 2006 7:27 AM

The Media Are the Enemy

Associated Press photographer Wesam Saleh tags along and takes pictures as terrorists set up bombs.

And notice the children all around, providing: 1) human shields for the terrorists, and 2) propaganda fodder if the IDF strikes and accidentally kills them.

(Pic here).


Palestinian militants set up an explosive device into a mount of sand in preparation for a possible Israeli army ground operation at the Jebaliy refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip Tuesday June 27, 2006. (AP Photo/Wesam Saleh, MaanImages).
via LGF

Posted by: maz2 at June 27, 2006 11:51 AM
Site
Meter